1991 PLP 1459 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1459 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1459 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1459 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1459 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 21st April, 1990.
- Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- 3. We find merit in the contention of the petitioners. Merely stating that it is not a proper case for enlarging the petitioners on bail can hardly constitute a good reason justifying for withholding a benefit which the Code of Criminal Procedure has expressly given to them. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has not been able to point out any reason why the petitioners should not be released on bail. We would accordingly convert this petition into appeal and direct that the petitioners be released on bail on executing bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Narowal.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order, dated 10-2-1990, of the Lahore High Court, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6-B of 1990 in Criminal Appeal No.502 of 1987).
S. 426(1-A)(c)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/149, 307/149 & 148-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suspension of sentence pending appeal
Appeal of accused against their convictions and sentences remained undisposed of for a period of more than two years in High Court and their application for suspension of sentence was rejected
Held, merely stating by High Court that case was not proper one for enlarging accused on bail could hardly constitute a good reason justifying withholding a benefit expressly given by Code of Criminal Procedure to accused
Prosecution also had not been able to point out any reason why the accused should not be released on bail
Petition for leave to appeal was consequently converted into appeal and accused were released on bail in circumstances. Farooq Bedar, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, of offences under sections 302 and 307, read with sections 149 and 148, Pakistan Penal Code. For the offence under section 302, they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment; in respect of the other offences they were awarded different sentences of imprisonment. They preferred a joint appeal against their convictions and sentences in the High Court. The appeal has not yet been disposed of for reason, presumably, that a part of the record has been misplaced.
2. The petitioners were convicted on 9‑8‑1987. As the appeal remained undisposed of for a period of more than two years they filed an application before the High Court for suspension of the sentences. The learned Single Judge rejected their application in this regard with the observation: "* * * Yet in the circumstances of the case, 1 do not consider it proper to enlarge them on bail on that ground alone." In support of this petition it is stated that under section 426(1A)(c), Criminal Procedure Code, a convicted person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life is entitled to be released on bail if his appeal is not decided within two years of his conviction, unless for reason to be recorded the Court otherwise denies. It is contended that the High Court has not given any good reason for denying the benefit of the said provision to the petitioners.
3. We find merit in the contention of the petitioners. Merely stating that it is not a proper case for enlarging the petitioners on bail can hardly constitute a good reason justifying for withholding a benefit which the Code of Criminal Procedure has expressly given to them. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has not been able to point out any reason why the petitioners should not be released on bail. We would accordingly convert this petition into appeal and direct that the petitioners be released on bail on executing bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Narowal. N.H.Q./M‑1463/S Bail allowed.